Would grumbling or impatience with something that happened at work or on the freeway be a sin according to the Orthodox Church? This would generally be a venial sin in the RCC, which is to say a lesser sin which would not merit eternal punishment.

We do not think in such a legalistic way. For us, it's rather about the process of theosis; wether you are deified on your death or not; or wether you at least tried to become deified or not.

Pick one.... "Jews for Jesus" are rather fringe Evangelical Protestants.

You forgot the third option: Dispensationalists

Quote

We believe that Israel exists as a covenant people through whom God continues to accomplish His purposes and that the Church is an elect people in accordance with the New Covenant, comprising both Jews and Gentiles who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and Redeemer.

Well, my understanding is that the Orthodox Church has the teachings of the early church, like baptism, divine presence in the Eucharist, apostolic succession.

If I wasn't Orthodox, that would mean for me that I very likely gave up Christianity. I admit the possibility I could have a mind-blowing revelation that the kosher Judaizer tendences of some in the early Jerusalem church were right, or that Jesus was only a human Messiah, but still was a Messiah, and in that case I would join some very small group. But I think that kind of revelation would be very unlikely, absent a time machine, plus I doubt those things would be right.

Judaism is the base of Christianity, but I would not go to Judaism, not because I am not an ethnic Jew, but because I love the image of God in the New Testament. Alot of the image of God in the Old Testament makes me recoil, when it takes about such strict laws of executing heretics, flogging people, not to mention all the kosher rules and customs. I think and want God to be a God of love and mercy, so it is not a model I would join. Judaism's main idea is monotheism, and that IS something I could go to.

So I would become a theist. I think Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers were Deists- they did not believe in Jesus' miracles, but believed in God in the classic nonChristian monotheist sense. I read that some Bolsheviks, like Maxim Gorky and perhaps Lunacharsky, did believe in the Lord God despite being nonChristians, and they called this understanding "Bogostroitelstvo." They saw God as being a collective, sharing commune of humanity combined with God. They had different ideas about what this meant. I think the movement might be associated with Transhumanism in English.

So I accept the Orthodox faith as the faith handed down by the apostles. If it turned out to be false, it wouldn't be on something like the Pope being an overarching infallible replacement for Christ on earth over all the church. That sounds so ridiculous and almost blasphemous to say that one person who is not God can be unable to make a mistake, especially when we see cases of Popes torturing people to death. if he thinks that is a good church decision, I don't trust him to be unmistakable when making up theories either. Sorry.

To reject Orthodoxy would have to mean that Christianity itself was deeply flawed, that the wonderful things I want to be true are not. I would still love God and go with the faith of the American and [some] Russian revolutionaries. But for that if a big IF again. I would again probably need a time machine to prove one way or the other. I am still on a spiritual journey spending time learning about Jesus and Christianity. And even if it is wrong, it is still a wonderful journey because it is very inspiring to see how a person can teach so much love, mercy, and understanding about God, be executed for it as a bad criminal, and have this faith spread around the world. I want Jesus to be resurrected like all the other good criminals. There are many many criminals, and many of them are good.

So I accept the Orthodox faith as the faith handed down by the apostles. If it turned out to be false, it wouldn't be on something like the Pope being an overarching infallible replacement for Christ on earth over all the church. That sounds so ridiculous and almost blasphemous to say that one person who is not God can be unable to make a mistake, especially when we see cases of Popes torturing people to death. if he thinks that is a good church decision, I don't trust him to be unmistakable when making up theories either. Sorry.

That is not at all how the Catholics are meant to see the pope and they do not. Infallibility does not mean not being able to make a mistake. I'll let a more learned poster or RC poster explain further if you want.

I've finally come to the conclusion that if Orthodoxy isn't the faith given to us by the one true God, then there is no one true God. I'd be atheist.

I had said I would be a general theist. I see your strict logic, so I will raise you one. You meant that God necessarily depends on Orthodoxy. God created Orthodoxy is something you believe so strongly, that if Orthodoxy didn't exist, then the formula wouldn't exist, since God is such a part of Orthodoxy for you. Well, God created you too, according to Orthodoxy. You are so connected to God and to Orthodoxy, that one couldn't exist without the other. And yet you exist.

The problem with this, if it is a problem, is that it is very ontological.

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

I've finally come to the conclusion that if Orthodoxy isn't the faith given to us by the one true God, then there is no one true God. I'd be atheist.

I had said I would be a general theist. I see your strict logic, so I will raise you one. You meant that God necessarily depends on Orthodoxy. God created Orthodoxy is something you believe so strongly, that if Orthodoxy didn't exist, then the formula wouldn't exist, since God is such a part of Orthodoxy for you. Well, God created you too, according to Orthodoxy. You are so connected to God and to Orthodoxy, that one couldn't exist without the other. And yet you exist.

The problem with this, if it is a problem, is that it is very ontological.

Interesting challenge. Allow me to continue. It isn't correct to have me say that "God ... depends on Orthodoxy. [That] God created Orthodoxy...." Yes, God created me - but He didn't create the Church in the same way, but rather reveals Himself through her. If everything that I am and everything that I know and experience should somehow be shown to have come into existence in some way other than that revealed through the Church, then God would have to be a liar and deceiver. Therefore, not a God who merits any concern or even belief from me. My belief would be that there is no God and all of what we know as creation is merely happenstance.

I think I was interpreting the original question as "What faith would you be if you couldn't be Orthodox?" In other words, knowing what I know now, if that were to be taken away from me, where would I turn?

I've finally come to the conclusion that if Orthodoxy isn't the faith given to us by the one true God, then there is no one true God. I'd be atheist.

I had said I would be a general theist. I see your strict logic, so I will raise you one. You meant that God necessarily depends on Orthodoxy. God created Orthodoxy is something you believe so strongly, that if Orthodoxy didn't exist, then the formula wouldn't exist, since God is such a part of Orthodoxy for you. Well, God created you too, according to Orthodoxy. You are so connected to God and to Orthodoxy, that one couldn't exist without the other. And yet you exist.

The problem with this, if it is a problem, is that it is very ontological.

Interesting challenge. Allow me to continue. It isn't correct to have me say that "God ... depends on Orthodoxy. [That] God created Orthodoxy...." Yes, God created me - but He didn't create the Church in the same way, but rather reveals Himself through her. If everything that I am and everything that I know and experience should somehow be shown to have come into existence in some way other than that revealed through the Church, then God would have to be a liar and deceiver. Therefore, not a God who merits any concern or even belief from me. My belief would be that there is no God and all of what we know as creation is merely happenstance.

I think I was interpreting the original question as "What faith would you be if you couldn't be Orthodox?" In other words, knowing what I know now, if that were to be taken away from me, where would I turn?

Atheism means that you do not believe in any God. The frightening hypothetical that you described (which I hope is not the case), would if it were the case mean that God is real, but you just don't turn to him or want to follow Him. That still would not mean He did not exist.

I very much want to believe God is so kind. If He isnt all-compassionate, then I guess it is just a realistic assessment that he follows the Old Testament tit-for tat style of vengeance. I think God transcends the Old Testament, stops the vengeance, and replaces it with something better. I see that human society develops, it transcends tit-for-tat, people are not as harsh as their grandparents often. It seems God wants to say something when he sees dead stagnancy. We have to be careful, in the sense that "We have fear of God", yet God makes us happy. This is very philosophical.

Even if God did follow the Old Testament, he still gives us a way out- there are many cruel times when the law in the US or another country executes people like the robber on Jesus' less for committing less than murder. Yes, still some states in US have the felony murder rule where some people are given 1st degree murder sentences for participating in a felony in which someone dies. The point is, society does not follow the Old Testament and has not for some time- it is much crueler. I think if God is real and is tit-for tat, it seems that he will still want to overcome what the law of the states put in place. He will want to overcome it with compassion.

What would I be if there is no God? Would I exist? What is God? Now you are in a completely different area if you have set aside Orthodox Christianity as a basis.

Atheism means that you do not believe in any God. The frightening hypothetical that you described (which I hope is not the case), would if it were the case mean that God is real, but you just don't turn to him or want to follow Him. That still would not mean He did not exist.

What would I be if there is no God? Would I exist? What is God? Now you are in a completely different area if you have set aside Orthodox Christianity as a basis.

What I mean is that I would have no belief in God and that my life would be lived on the premise that He does not exist. It would be a denial of the existence of God.

Remember, we're talking about beliefs and perceptions here. And I do agree that without God I really can't imagine my own existence. But I'm answering a question that expects me to suspend my beliefs.

Absolutely, me too. And if I lived through the Sixties then possibly even a Sedevacantist.

Now, if there was no Christianity at all then it gets a bit tougher....can one be a carnivore and a Hindu at the same time?

Can you please point me to a VERY brief summary of the differences between the Tridentine mass and the Novo Ordo one since Vatican II?

Or you can just tell me.

Thanks

This is actually a complicated question to answer because the Novus Ordo is celebrated differently in different parishes and in different regions. But here it goes.The Novus Ordo is considered a very dressed down version of the Roman Rite. It is celebrated in the venacular and the prayers are much much simpler than the prayers of the Tridentine Mass. Some say that the the prayers of the Trindentine Liturgy are richer in theology and worship. In many places, the music used in the Novus Ordo is more modern, ranging from the sappy church music of the seventies and eighties, to contemporary Christian worship. However, there are parishes in which the NO (Novus Ordo) is celebrated with traditional hymns, and even sacred polyphony or Gregorian Chant, which is actually the only music allowed in the Tridentine Mass. One of the most striking differences is that in many Parishes the NO is celebrated with the priest facing the people rather than ad orientem which is the manner prescribed for the Tridentine Liturgy. However, there is a growing trend in which priests celebrated the NO ad orientem just like the TLM. The funny thing about the situation is that the rubrics of Paul VI never called for the priest to face the people.In all, the NO has had a complicated short history but things are beginning to improve. As stated above, many priests are starting to celebrate ad orientem and the sacred music is working its way back into many parishes. This process is being supported by the growing appreciation of the TLM in the Catholic Church and I can only hope that the love of good and traditional liurgy continues to spread.

Just a side, note. I think an Eastern Orthodox Christian would feel comfortable visiting a Tridentine Mass or a NO that is celebrate ad orientem with sacred music. However, and EO might feel uncomfortable at a NO that is celebrated with more contemporary music.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Just a side, note. I think an Eastern Orthodox Christian would feel comfortable visiting a Tridentine Mass or a NO that is celebrate ad orientem with sacred music. However, and EO might feel uncomfortable at a NO that is celebrated with more contemporary music.

That's exactly my experience even before conversion. I had attended Byzantine services for a time before attending my first Tridentine mass. Due to lack of Latin skills I didn't understand much of it but I felt right at home. The spirit was pretty much the same I had used to in the Byzantine services whereas the NO masses felt completely different. I wonder whether the more traditionally celebrated NO mass would feel more like a home...

Absolutely, me too. And if I lived through the Sixties then possibly even a Sedevacantist.

Now, if there was no Christianity at all then it gets a bit tougher....can one be a carnivore and a Hindu at the same time?

Can you please point me to a VERY brief summary of the differences between the Tridentine mass and the Novo Ordo one since Vatican II?

Or you can just tell me.

Thanks

This is actually a complicated question to answer because the Novus Ordo is celebrated differently in different parishes and in different regions. But here it goes.The Novus Ordo is considered a very dressed down version of the Roman Rite. It is celebrated in the venacular and the prayers are much much simpler than the prayers of the Tridentine Mass. Some say that the the prayers of the Trindentine Liturgy are richer in theology and worship. In many places, the music used in the Novus Ordo is more modern, ranging from the sappy church music of the seventies and eighties, to contemporary Christian worship. However, there are parishes in which the NO (Novus Ordo) is celebrated with traditional hymns, and even sacred polyphony or Gregorian Chant, which is actually the only music allowed in the Tridentine Mass. One of the most striking differences is that in many Parishes the NO is celebrated with the priest facing the people rather than ad orientem which is the manner prescribed for the Tridentine Liturgy. However, there is a growing trend in which priests celebrated the NO ad orientem just like the TLM. The funny thing about the situation is that the rubrics of Paul VI never called for the priest to face the people.In all, the NO has had a complicated short history but things are beginning to improve. As stated above, many priests are starting to celebrate ad orientem and the sacred music is working its way back into many parishes. This process is being supported by the growing appreciation of the TLM in the Catholic Church and I can only hope that the love of good and traditional liurgy continues to spread.

Just a side, note. I think an Eastern Orthodox Christian would feel comfortable visiting a Tridentine Mass or a NO that is celebrate ad orientem with sacred music. However, and EO might feel uncomfortable at a NO that is celebrated with more contemporary music.

Sorry, Papist. I didn't see your reply before mine. Thanks for the info. There is so much beauty in the RC Church, I hope over time its reclaimed.

Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

PAGAN!!! No, only kidding. If I couldn't be Orthodox, I wouldn't want to live. Life without the Truth would be a living hell.

Do you Mean Like Give me Holy Orthodoxy, Or Give me Death...If i NEVER KNEW ORTHODOXY , i would be happy as a Jehova wittness i think till something better came along, like Mormanisim Iv had dealings with both very impressed by them....

PAGAN!!! No, only kidding. If I couldn't be Orthodox, I wouldn't want to live. Life without the Truth would be a living hell.

Do you Mean Like Give me Holy Orthodoxy, Or Give me Death...If i NEVER KNEW ORTHODOXY , i would be happy as a Jehova wittness i think till something better came along, like Mormanisim Iv had dealings with both very impressed by them....

Then you may really like one or two of the Mormon splinter groups if going way far afield has appeal for you.

There is the "Temple Lot" Mormons. They were among those who stayed back in MO and split with Brigham Young over polygamy and such the like and did not go to Utah. They formed The Reformed Church of Later Day Saints which now goes by the name Church of Christ I think. Then a smaller group broke from them and gained control of a 1 acre plot of land that Joseph Smith said was the exact spot where the Lord will return.

It bothers the other Mormon groups no end that this little sect owns the site. First one to the county deed office won I guess.

Religion is fun. Can we set up lawn chairs and a lemonade stand there while we wait I wonder.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 05:51:22 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

PAGAN!!! No, only kidding. If I couldn't be Orthodox, I wouldn't want to live. Life without the Truth would be a living hell.

Do you Mean Like Give me Holy Orthodoxy, Or Give me Death...If i NEVER KNEW ORTHODOXY , i would be happy as a Jehova wittness i think till something better came along, like Mormanisim Iv had dealings with both very impressed by them....

That doesn't surprise me.

Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Actually I think that plain old paganism would be rather interesting option. I mean why not to stick with ones own tradition i.e. Paganism instead of completety weird and alien religions coming from other part of the World.

Fundamentalist Mormon, hands down: compound, special undergarments, 27 wives and all.It's all in the D&CThough I'd have to be president, prophet, seer and revelator.

Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

Probably Jewish, since, the mainline Protestant Churches are a joke in my opinion, judging from personal experience, and I cannot accept the legalistic, abusive-father view of salvation in Roman Catholicism. Judaism on the other hand seems more liturgical and valid, with deep devotion to study and waiting for the Savior to come with a sort of quiet, introverted position in the world where not a lot of people know about is and we are free to observe from a distance, perfect for the individualistic introverted personality I have. Wow, saying this makes me want to reconsider my conversion to Orthodoxy and go to Judaism. On the other hand, I do not think it is worth having to get circumcised for /jk.

Deist, I don't think I can live in a world in which I could deny the existence of a divine conscious entity that is responsible and or the source of our morality, the cause of everything that began to exist and the like.

Before I became Orthodox, I was intrigued by Buddhism, Kabbalistic Judaism, and Sufism (I was exploring them, though I hadn't gone too deeply into any of them. Kept feeling that they all pointed towards a common direction).

Shared JamesR's sentiments towards Catholicism, above; kept digging into the history of the other Christian denominations & kept rejecting them.

More properly philosophies, Zen, Taoism, & Confucianism & made a lot of sense to me.

So, if I hadn't come to Orthodoxy, optimistically, I think I may have become some form of Buddhist.

More realistically, probably some form of Mr. Potatohead style pick-and-choose-your-own New Agey Do It Yourself Enlightenment kind of thing based on all of the above.

I've always enjoyed reading about odd little sects and 'remnant' religions. Wonder if there are any working Zoroastrian temples today?

In India, for sure.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I've always enjoyed reading about odd little sects and 'remnant' religions. Wonder if there are any working Zoroastrian temples today?

In India, for sure.

Yazd, Iran still has a relatively large, active Zoroastrian community.

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).